Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
October
(22)
- Nancy Calhoun, Roxanne Donnery, and Chris McKenna
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, October 29, 2010
- Hide Your Young Daughters...!!!
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, October 28, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, October 27, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, October 26, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, October 25, 2010
- Weekend Newbsites: Sat. & Sun., Oct. 23 & 24, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, October 22, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, October 21, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, October 20, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, October 19, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, October 18, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun.; Oct. 16 & 17, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, October 15, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, October 14, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, October 13, 2010
- I Need A Vacation To Recover From My Vacation!
- Vacation Time! "See" You On Tuesday, Oct. 12th!
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, Oct. 4, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Oct. 2 & 3, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, October 1. 2010
-
▼
October
(22)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
16 comments:
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/high-tech-industry-gives-more-money-to-democrats.html
The computers and Internet industry has given 66% of its money in the 2010 election cycle to Democrats, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
(*SHRUG*) (*SMIRK*)
Of the top 10 recipients of money from the computer and Internet industry this election, nine are Democrats.
(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Microsoft is the top contributor with 60% of its nearly $1.3 million in contributions going to Democrats.
Contributions from those associated with Cisco make it the second highest contributor in the industry with $557,919 in donations, 67% of which went to Democratic candidates and committees. Google is next, with $456,119 in contributions, 75% of which went to Democrats, followed by Intel, with 57% of its $373,205 in contributions going to Democrats.
* HEY... HASN'T GOOGLE BEEN IN THE NEWS LATELY... (*SNICKER*)
* FOLKS. ALL RIBBING ASIDE. CRONY CAPITALISM IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. FOLLOW THE GODDAMN MONEY...!!!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39541
* BY THE HONORABLE... THE ESTEEMED... THE "USUALLY RIGHT"... PATRICK J. BUCHANAN!
(*WILD CHEERING*)
Before the Tea Party philosophy is ever even tested in America, it will have succeeded, or it will have failed, in Great Britain. For in David Cameron the Brits have a prime minister who can fairly be described as a Tea Party Tory.
Casting aside the guidance of Lord Keynes - government-induced deficits are the right remedy for recessions - Cameron has bet his own and his party's future on the new austerity. He is making Maggie Thatcher look like Tip O'Neill.
The Tory budget cuts defense 8% and military personnel by 7,000. Translated here, that would mean a cut of $60 billion and about 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
* THE PENTAGON MUST NOT BE A SACRED COW! (THIS IS A KEY CHINK IN TEA PARTY ARMOR; FAR TOO MANY OF MY FELLOW TEA PARTIERS ARE INSTINCTIVELY KNEE-JERK "HAWKS" WHO FALSELY IDENTIFY PATRIOTISM WITH "EMPIRE."
By 2015, some 490,000 public-sector employees, 8% of the total, will lose their jobs. The rest will have their wages frozen for two years and face a 3% of salary hike in compulsory contributions to their pension program. The retirement age will rise from 65 to 66.
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
If Cameron's plans take effect and his projections prove correct, Britain's deficit will fall from 10% of gross domestic product to 2%. Writes the FT, "The UK cuts ... over four years are the equivalent of 4.5% of projected 2014-2015 gross domestic product. Similar cuts in the U.S. would require a cut in public spending of about $650 billion."
* SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME!
* UNFORTUNATELY... (*SIGH*)
Nothing like that is being discussed here, and even if Republicans capture the House, cuts of that magnitude appear out of the question. The correlation of forces would not permit it.
[T]he Tea Party faces almost certain disappointment, if not disillusionment. Why? Because many in the Republican establishment...do not believe austerity is the way to go in a recession.
Second, while most Republicans may favor deep cuts, they know that if they vote to cut Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, but do not get those cuts, they will get the pain but not the benefit and be held accountable, just as Democrats were held accountable for cap-and-trade, which they voted for but did not get through the Senate.
* THEY NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH REFORMS ARE NECESSARY...!!! IN ORDER TO TRIUMPH POLICYWISE CONSERVATIVES HAVE TO BE "ALL IN." UNFORTUNATELY... FAR TOO MANY REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT TYPES AREN'T TRUE CONSERVATIVES... AREN'T TRUE BELIEVERS IN THE POLICIES I BELIEVE IN.
Republicans will come out of this election with a tricky hand to play. They will have the appearance of power, but not the actuality. They will vote for cuts that will not be agreed to by the Senate or accepted by the president. If the economy is in the ditch in 2012, they will seem ineffectual. If the economy is improving, Obama and Bernanke will claim credit.
By then, however, we will know the fate of the Tea Party Tory who will at least have seen his policy prescriptions put to the test.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562442197836742.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
* BY FORMER SENATOR BOB LIVINGSTON --
Tea Partiers have adopted a mantra that all earmarks are bad, that they are the sole reason the country is in deep trouble.
(*SNORT*) A RIDICULOUS OVERSIMPLIFICATION - AND INDEED DISTORTION - OF TEA PARTIER BELIEFS.
* THAT SAID, THERE IS TRUTH IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT MOST TEA PARTIERS ARE ANTI-EARMARK.
There are indeed bad earmarks that waste tax dollars and bloat the budget. But many are very much in the public interest.
* THAT'S TRUE. (*NOD*)
When I served in Congress, I earmarked money for missile defense on several occasions in the 1980s despite objections from the Democratic majority and, in the 1990s, from the Clinton administration. I helped push Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs) through earmarks in appropriations bills in the mid-1980s, over objections from the Pentagon. That technology led to the creation of the Predator, the surveillance aircraft capable of launching the laser-guided Hellfire missiles that are of enormous benefit in Afghanistan.
The United States' first aircraft carrier, a retired Navy captain with three decades of service tells me, was not envisioned or desired by the Defense Department in the 1920s, but was added by members of Congress as an earmark. Thank God we had those carriers in World War II.
And that's the point. A president's entire budget is one big earmark. It reflects his priorities and those of an incumbent bureaucracy. If members of Congress, especially members of the opposition party, unilaterally eschew earmarks, it means they intend to rubber stamp the executive branch's priorities and insert none of their own.
That is not only foolish and bad politics. It is contrary to the intent of the Constitution.
* GOOD EXAMPLES; FAIR STATEMENT.
* To be continued...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
Appropriations committees do not only have the power to spend: They also have the power to cut spending. This is no mere academic or philosophical statement. When Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, we did exactly that. In the first few months, we terminated 300 programs and cut roughly $50 billion from the budget set by the Democrats in the preceding year. For the next four years, when I was chairman of the House appropriations committee, we curtailed spending so much that by the time I left Congress in 1999 the budget was in virtual balance. It remained so for two years.
* THE KEY TO THE DEFENCE OF EARMARKS IS TRANSPARENCY. VOTERS NEED TO KNOW - TO UNDERSTAND... TO BE INFORMED IN PLAIN LANGUAGE - REGARDING WHAT THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE IS VOTING FOR vs. VOTING AGAINST. PERIOD!
* EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE - AND THE PRESIDENT - SHOULD HAVE HIS OR HER OWN BLOG AND SHOULD BLOG EVERY DAY AND DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT HE OR SHE HAS DONE THAT DAY. (WITHIN LIMITS!) I'M TALKING ABOUT VOTES AND EXPLANATION OF VOTES, ETC.
If earmarks have merit, make them transparent to the public and stand by them. Don't sneak them through in the dead of night.
(*NOD*) EXACTLY...!!!
In constraining the overall federal budget...don't pass "across the board cuts" that penalize the good programs and reward the wasteful, redundant and fraudulent ones.
* I DISAGREE. THINKS ARE TO THE POINT WHERE AN ACROSS THE BOARD CUT - OR AT LEAST FREEZE - WOULD BE THE PRUDENT THING TO DO AND THEN FOLLOW UP WITH LIVINGSTON'S FOLLOWING SUGGESTION:
Hold your hearings. Find out where the waste really lies. Seek out and apply cuts or even "zeros" to programs we do not need.
(*NOD*)
* INDEED, PERHAPS A NEW JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE SHOULD BE CREATED - THE "DEVOLVEMENT" COMMITTEE, TASKED TO COME UP WITH PROPOSALS CUTTING/ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT BODIES, PROGRAMS, AND ELIMINATING OBSOLETE AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
Kill off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other agencies that have done so much to destroy our economy. Zero out the budgets of all the unneeded "czars." Take away their offices, their hired help and even their parking places.
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
If you don't like an action by the Justice Department to file suit against Arizona, insert a provision in the bill that funds this agency to the effect that "None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be used for litigation against any state that . . ."
(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
The fact is that the appropriations committee of a single Congressional House has enormous power to trim the budget if backed by a majority. Article One of the Constitution awards the Congress, not the president, the power of the purse. If one House chooses not to spend money on anything - from a plane, train or automobile to an office or a parking space, a cabinet member's salary or even an agency or whole Department - it doesn't have to spend it. Nothing the president says or does can make the members do it if they have the political will to hang tough.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562350166984886.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
The Phoenix and the Guardian, two antique fireboats moored near the San Francisco Bay Bridge, are operated by a 6-person crew from the city's fire department. A few times a week, the vessels putter about to provide a visiting cruise ship with a watery salute. For this, all of the vessels' captains and engineers are paid $172,253 a year in salary and benefits and are eligible for a city-paid pension after 20 years. Regardless of whether they take a new job, the pension entitles them to 90% of their annual income, plus annual cost of living adjustments, for the rest of their lives.
(*SIGH*)
And so it's little wonder that 77,000 San Franciscans signed a petition to place a measure on the November 2nd ballot that would do what generations of politicians haven't: bring a modicum of sanity to the pension and benefit programs of San Francisco government employees. If passed, Proposition B would require all city employees to contribute up to 10% of their income to their pension plans, and to pay half of the health-care premiums of their dependents. This will save San Francisco at least $120 million a year, at a time when its pension tab is $400 million per year, up from $175 million in 2005.
* I'VE GOT A BETTER IDEA: PAY EMPLOYEES A SALARY. PERIOD. WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR EARNINGS IS THEIR BUSINESS.
* TO BE CLEAR... SINCE MY SANE PROPOSAL ISN'T ON THE BALLOT... I SUPPORT PROPOSITION B WHICH IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
Every incumbent official in the city opposes Proposition B except its sponsor, the progressive public defender Jeff Adachi, who is as far removed from being a tea party member as Wasilla is from Washington. The Democratic Party has condemned the initiative. Democratic Mayor Gavin Newsom says that if workers' benefits are trimmed it will be impossible to find replacements...
(*SMIRK*) WITH 9.6% NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT IT'LL BE "IMPOSSIBLE" TO FIND REPLACEMENTS...??? (*SNICKER*)
[U]nemployment rates top 20% in parts of California...
(*MELANCHOLY NOD*)
On average, private-sector workers earn half as much as city employees. And as their savings disappear, they have no option but to continue working until their teeth fall out.
(*FRUSTRATED NOD*)
A typical San Francisco resident with one dependent pays $953 a month for health care, while the typical city employee pays less than $10.
* INSANITY...
San Francisco's deputy police chief earned $516,000 in cash compensation and retired with a $230,000-a-year pension...
(*GRITTING MY TEETH*) (*NECK VEINS BULGING*) (*FACE TURNING RED*)
[T]he only major local political figure who champions Proposition B is Willie Brown, a former mayor, who admits that decades of backroom deals have led to fiasco.
* WELL, HERE'S TO WILLIE! (*RAISING A GLASS*)
San Francisco's pension crisis is a miniature version of what now faces almost every mature economy. The debts accumulated during the economic crisis of the last few years are tiny compared to the debts that cities and states have accumulated since the beginning of the New Deal. Almost a century ago, when life expectancies were much shorter, pensions and benefits for government workers were a way to cushion the indignities of a working person's last few years of life. Now they allow people to retire at age 50 on close to full pay, with annual cost-of-living increases and complete health-care coverage—plus the choice either to take a new job or to enjoy a lifetime of Sundays.
(*NOD*)
As the city's debt has started to bite, San Francisco has cut back on almost every service: Summer schools have been shut, potholes deepen, parks close early, and services that help the poor and vulnerable have been pared to the quick. This month the Board of Supervisors decided to plant another 1,300 parking meters in another effort to get the city's 800,000 citizens to pay...
* AND PAY... AND PAY... AND PAY...
(*DEEP SIGH*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/21/we-are-witnessing-the-unmistakable-collapse-of-an-/
[T]his president is my cousin.
* THE AUTHOR OF THIS OP-ED: . MILTON R. WOLF, M.D.
But as a physician who took an inviolate oath to my patients, I am duty-bound to take [the following] stand, particularly after watching Barack Obama make so many unkeepable Obamacare promises:
[Promise #1] -- Obamacare would reduce our deficit.
We were to believe that millions of Americans would be added to the insurance rolls, that medical care would not suffer, and somehow, almost magically, costs would go down. We might as well promise it will never rain on weekends. Gravity caught up to this wishful thinking, and even the president's own actuary now admits the overhaul will increase, not decrease, the deficit.
[Promise #2] -- Obamacare would allow you to keep your doctor and your current insurance.
How can you keep your doctor if your doctor can't keep his practice?
The New England Journal of Medicine reported a survey that showed nearly half of America's doctors are being forced to consider leaving their practice if Obamacare is implemented. And businesses already are finding they can no longer provide the same insurance policies to their employees that they had before Obamacare.
Oklahoma's Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, also a physician, estimates 90 million Americans will lose their current insurance policies because of the takeover. Millions of them will be forced into Medicaid and government exchanges.
[Promise #3] -- Obamacare would not jeopardize senior citizens' care.
The continued viability of Medicare Advantage is in serious jeopardy because of Mr. Obama's Medicare cuts to pay for other parts of his health care overhaul.
Companies already are announcing that they can no longer offer this very popular free-market Medicare reform. What's more, fewer doctors are able to accept Medicare patients with the downward pressure on reimbursement levels, currently stuck at 1980s levels.
Too often, physicians' practices cannot survive being in business with the federal government. Already, 42% of doctors do not accept Medicare, and that number is increasing. Your shiny government-issued Medicare card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.
[Promise #4] -- Obamacare would not ration health care.
The president promised time and time again that he would not ration health care, and then promptly, under the cloak of a recess appointment, installed as the head of Medicare a man who would do it for him. Dr. Donald Berwick has announced unambiguously and with glee many times over that he will indeed ration America's medical care (in addition to his own bizarre promises to redistribute your wealth) but he assures us that he's our intellectual better, so it will be fine. He also declares he's "romantic" about the British-government-run system and specifically admires how the British purposefully undersupply medical needs to alleviate "bottlenecks."
They've been "alleviated" all right. Britain's colon cancer mortality rate, for example, is 40% higher than America's; breast cancer 88% higher; prostate cancer a staggering 604% higher.
All those unnecessary deaths "unburden" the system of patients seeking care. Some might call this rationing. (Mr. Berwick, by the way, created his own health care golden parachute to assure that he and his wife would never be forced to submit themselves to the Medicare rules he creates.) (How convenient.)
* To be continued...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
[Promise #5] -- Obamacare would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year.
New excise taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical products will, of course, by necessity be passed on to the patients who depend on these lifesaving medicines, pacemakers, MRI machines or even tongue depressors. Even more flagrant, there are new Obamacare taxes on everything from tampons to tanning salons, from gold to the sale of your home.
[Promise #6] -- Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately. )Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added this grand promise of her own.)
[S]ince the health care takeover was signed into law, no such jobs boom has occurred.
[Promise #7] -- Obamacare hearings would be held in public.
Unlike the other promises, this one could have been kept and in fact may have prevented all these other catastrophic failures, but sadly, it was wantonly ignored by this president.
Candidate Obama pledged eight times to hold health care hearings in public. Invite the C-SPAN cameras, he said, because open hearings would allow Americans to know who was on their side.
Indeed it would have.
* DR. WOLF - PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COUSIN - THAN WRITES:
Mr. President - Barack - I offer to you the next best thing. Let's you and I hold a public discussion on America's health care for those C-SPAN cameras once and for all. ... Let's finally give Americans the honest and cordial discussion they deserve.
You know that I have dedicated my life to serving patients, and nowhere will you find a person who will be more respectful to you. You also know I hold nothing against you personally.
I understand you may feel, as a lawyer, that you're a little out of your element discussing health care with a physician, so I urge you to bring Dr. Berwick along. America deserves to hear, at least one time, from the man who holds more health care power over them than even a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
* WOW... AMAZING...
* THIS OP-ED SHOULD LEAD TODAY'S NEWS. EVERY TV AND RADIO NEWS SHOW AND POLITICAL OPINION SHOW SHOULD BE FOCUSED UPON FORWARDING THIS OFFER INTO THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS. EVERY BLOGGER AND EVERY EDITORIAL WRITER SHOULD BE WRITING IN FAVOR OF DR. WOLF'S PROPOSAL.
Until then, what should we do? We must defund, repeal and replace Obamacare before it defunds America, destroys the finest health care system in the world and replaces it with a European social-welfare government-run version.
http://city-journal.org/2010/20_4_san-francisco-homeless.html
The homelessness industry has pulled off some impressive feats of rebranding over the years - most notably, turning street vagrancy into a consequence of unaffordable housing, rather than of addiction and mental illness.
But for sheer audacity, nothing tops the alchemy that homelessness advocates and their government sponsors are currently attempting in San Francisco.
The sidewalks of the Haight-Ashbury district have been colonized by aggressive, migratory youths who travel up and down the West Coast panhandling for drug and booze money. Homelessness, Inc. is trying to portray these voluntary vagabonds as the latest victims of inadequate government housing programs, hoping to defeat an ordinance against sitting and lying on public sidewalks that the Haight community has generated.
The outcome of the industry’s rebranding campaign - and of the Haight’s competing effort to restore order - will be known this November, when San Franciscans vote on the proposed sit-lie law.
That vote will reveal whether San Francisco is ready to join the many other cities that view civilized public space as essential to urban life.
* YA, KNOW... I ACTUALLY SAW WHAT THE ARTICLE REFERS TO LAST YEAR WHEN MARY AND I VISITED SEATTLE AND VICTORIA. FOR ME... 6'4" AND 350 LBS. NOT A BIG DEAL... NO ONE BOTHERED ME... BUT I'M THE EXCEPTION - NOT THE RULE. AND INDEED, BIG OR NOT... WHAT AM I GONNA DO ABSENT A GUN IF THREE... FOUR... SIX... SCUMBAGS JUMP ME...? (*SHRUG*) THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM; I'VE SEEN IT! (AND I SAW IT IN SAN FRANCISCO SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE THERE; IT'S ONLY GOTTEN WORSE.)
Over the last several years, the Haight’s vagrant population has grown more territorial and violent, residents and merchants say. Pit bulls are a frequent fashion accessory, threatening and sometimes injuring passersby. In July, two pit bulls bred by the residents of an encampment in nearby Golden Gate Park tore into three pedestrians, biting a 71-year-old woman to the bone and wounding her two companions. In October 2009, one of three punks sitting on a blanket with dogs spat on a 14-month-old baby when its mother rejected their demand for change. The vagrants carry knives and Mace; people who ask them to move risk getting jumped.
* FOLKS... YOU SHOULD READ HEATHER MACDONALD'S PIECE IN ITS ENTIRETY. I'M TELLING YOU... AMERICANS NEED TO GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES LIKE THIS. IT'S NOT JUST AN "URBAN" PROBLEM. THIS CRAP IS MOVING OUT OF THE MAJOR CITIES INTO "MINOR" CITIES AND LARGE TOWNS. WE'VE GOT TO REVERSE THE TREND BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566500702401846.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
* Steve Moore writing in the [Wall Street] Journal's Political Diary e-newsletter, Oct. 20 --
We caught up with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recently and posed a question to him: Will the formal end of the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico help rescue the economy in his region?
"It will hardly help at all," says Mr. Jindal. . . .
Drillers still depend on the Obama administration to issue permits, he says, but the administration hasn't been issuing them. "We're now about the only country in the world that isn't doing new offshore drilling," he complains.
Mr. Jindal tells of a meeting he and other Louisiana officials held with Barack Obama shortly after the spill.
"We told him a drilling ban is going to kill the economy here and put people out of work," Mr. Jindal says. "His response was: 'Don't worry about that. BP is going to pay for all that. And those workers will be eligible for unemployment insurance.'" . . .
The administration insists "only" 6,000 jobs were lost due to the moratorium, says Mr. Jindal. "We think the number is way higher. But who brags about a policy that destroys thousands of jobs?"
* APPARENTLY BARAK "INSANE" OBAMA! (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*)
* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... WISEASS PLAYS ON WORDS ASIDE... THERE'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250485/three-charts-will-infuriate-taxpayers-deroy-murdock
* READ THE ARTICLE. STUDY THE GRAPHS.
(*SHRUG*)
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/250637/obama-s-tax-cut-rich-oil-companies
Tom Vilsack, [President Obama's] Secretary of Agriculture, came out Thursday with an announcement sure to warm the cockles of progressive hearts all across the fruited plains: The Obama administration backs the indefinite extension of massive tax cuts for multinational oil corporations and protectionist trade measures to enrich U.S. corporate giants such as Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, and ConAgra.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Ethanol: Is there anything it can’t do? It won’t save the environment, slow global warming, or achieve the phantom of U.S. “energy independence,” but it has made the Obama administration come out in favor of tax cuts for the rich and politically connected oil companies. It’s sort of magical that way.
(*SNIDE CHUCKLE*)
Critics of the massive corporate-welfare program known as U.S. ethanol policy have jokingly referred to Archer Daniels Midland as the “Exxon of ethanol.” But you know who the real Exxon of ethanol is? Exxon. Just as BP gets subsidized to the tune of some $600 million a year through the ethanol tax credit, Exxon and the other oil giants collect millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies: 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend into their gasoline.
“It’s not just a reduction in somebody’s tax rate - it’s an actual check that’s made out to these oil companies,” says Marlo Lewis, who keeps an eye on ethanol shenanigans for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “They get a check from the general fund of the Treasury - from us, the taxpayers.”
* HOPE... CHANGE... HOPE... CHANGE... (*SNORT*)
Keep ethanol in mind when Obama, Al Gore, and [their] Wall Street guys who are positioned to benefit from “green energy” programs talk about “temporary” measures to protect a "fledgling" start-up industry.
The day never comes when these industries can stand on their own - because they never were economically viable in the first place.
They’re selling a product nobody wants at a price nobody wants to pay.
The Obama administration is dead-set on raising the taxes of thousands of small-business owners, the so-called rich who benefited from the Bush tax cuts. And, at the same time, his administration is arguing for a massive tax cut for some of the most profitable multinational corporations in the world....which is what you get when a president brought to you by Goldman Sachs promises to take on the fat cats.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250469/frankly-ruthless-thomas-sowell
Among long-time politicians who are being seriously challenged for the first time this election year, [Democrat Rep.] Barney Frank of Massachusetts best epitomizes the cynical ruthlessness that hides behind their lofty rhetoric.
Having been a key figure in promoting the risky mortgage-lending practices imposed by the federal government on lenders - and in encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these risky mortgages from the lenders - Barney Frank blamed the resulting collapse of financial markets and the economy on everybody except Barney Frank.
In February 2009, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Frank summoned before the committee the heads of some of the biggest banks in the country before his committee. In the words of the Los Angeles Times, these bankers “endured hours of hectoring” by “indignant lawmakers” on that committee. These bankers were in no position to talk back to members of this committee, much less point out how committee members - including Chairman Barney Frank - had themselves promoted laws and policies responsible for the current economic disaster.
* BULLSHIT! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE! THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IT BEFORE THE CAMERAS AND REINFORCED THE MESSAGE - THE ACCURATE "HISTORY LESSON" - VIA AD PLACEMENTS IN THE PRESS AND AD BUYS ON TV, RADIO, AND THE INTERNET.
This is a committee with the power to promote legislation detrimental to this heavily regulated industry. That in turn gives the committee the power to force others to sit there and take it, when they are demonized on nationwide TV.
* AGAIN... BULLSHIT! THESE SCUM SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP TO... er... THE SCUM RUNNING THE COMMITTEE. THOMAS SOWELL IS ABSOLUTELY, 100% WRONG ON THIS. THE BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE - ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING ON THE OFFENSE AND EXPLAINING THE TRUTH WOULD HAVE SERVED OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.
Congressman Barney Frank has never hesitated to use his power ruthlessly. On one occasion, he threatened bankers with summoning them before his committee and forcing them to reveal their home addresses - which would of course put their spouses and children at the mercy of any kooks that might come along.
* OH, GIVE ME A FRIGG'N BREAK! FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE! THESE ARE RICH, POWERFUL MEN AND WOMEN. TWO CAN PLAY AT THESE GAMES FRANK THREATENED TO UNLEASH. IF ANYTHING, THE POLITICIANS ARE MORE VULNERABLE TO SUCH TACTICS THAN PRIVATE CITIZENS SINCE SO MANY MORE PEOPLE KNOW AND HATE THEM!
When federal regulators uncovered "irregularities" in Fannie Mae’s accounting, and in 2004 issued what Barron’s magazine called “a blistering 211-page report,” Barney Frank lashed out - not at Fannie Mae, but at the regulators who uncovered Fannie Mae’s misdeeds.
He said “a leadership change” in the regulatory agency was “overdue.”
(*SNORT*)
Politicians who say we need more regulation almost never mean regulation in the sense of impartially enforcing explicit rules, such as the accounting rules that Fannie Mae was violating to cover up its own risks. They mean regulation with arbitrary powers, such as those under the Community Reinvestment Act, which enable regulators to carry out the agendas that politicians give them.
When Congressman Jim Leach tried to get stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 1992, and when President George W. Bush did so in 2004, Barney Frank opposed them.
* TO REITERATE FROM PREVIOUS NEWSBITE COMMENTARY... IF I HAD MY WAY BARNEY FRANK WOULD BE - AT A MINIMUM - STRIPPED OF HIS CITIZENSHIP AND EXILED. (I KNOW... I KNOW... JUST A "DREAM.")
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100060304/labour-london-borough-becomes-islamic-republic/
Outside the [London, England] Wellington Way polling station in Tower Hamlets yesterday, as at many other polling stations in the borough, people had to run a gauntlet of Lutfur Rahman supporters to reach the ballot box.
As one Bengali woman voter went past them, we heard one of the Rahman army scolding her for her “immodest dress.”
That incident is perhaps a tiny taste of the future for Britain’s poorest borough now it has elected Mr Rahman as its first executive mayor, with almost total power over its £1 billion budget.
At the count last night, one very senior figure in the Tower Hamlets Labour Party said: “It really is Britain’s Islamic republic now.”
* WHY DO I PROVIDE SO MANY "FOREIGN" NEWSBITES CONCERNING "FOREIGN" PROBLEMS? SIMPLE. THAT'S THE DIRECTION AMERICA IS HEADING IN AND I WANT YOU FOLKS TO HAVE SOME CONTEXT REGARDING WHAT'S HAPPENED IN OTHER WESTERN NATIONS - PARTICULARLY BRITAIN AND CANADA - WHEN THEY'VE FOLLOWED LEFTIST "MULTI-CULTURAL" SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL MODELS.
For the last eight months – without complaint or challenge from Mr Rahman – this blog and newspaper have laid out his close links with a group of powerful local businessmen and with a Muslim supremacist body, the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) - which believes, in its own words, in transforming the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed… from ignorance to Islam.”
Mr Rahman has refused to deny these claims.
* FOLKS... IF YOU WANT TO READ ABOUT AMERICA'S POSSIBLE FUTURE... CLICK THE LINK AND READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6800/turkey-china-military-drill-reveals-deepening-ties-widening-reach
The news that Turkey and China had organized a joint military exercise at the huge Konya airbase in Turkey's central Anatolian region last month came as a surprise to many.
* NOT TO ME, BUT... (*SHRUG*)
[F]or those who follow Turkish politics and Turkey-China relations closely, the development is not surprising at all. [T]ies between the two countries have been deepening since former Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit to Turkey in April 2000 opened a new chapter in bilateral relations. At that time, the two countries signed several agreements in the field of political, economic, and energy cooperation, and made a joint statement regarding the fight against international terrorism, ethnic separatism, and religious extremism. Since then, Turkey has never officially supported the Uighur separatist movement, which has historically been the main obstacle in Turkey-China relations.
[Then there's] Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's recent visit to Ankara, during which he and Erdogan signed eight agreements on cooperation. The visit reflects China's commitment to pursuing closer ties in areas like trade, railway construction, infrastructure, communications and cultural exchanges.
Trade volume between China and Turkey exceeded $10 billion in 2009, according to official statistics. The two countries agreed to increase their annual trade volume to $50 billion by 2015 and $100 billion by 2020, with sectors such as energy, air transport and tourism providing opportunities for further cooperation.
* To be continued...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
For Turkey, the military drill reveals the full potential extent of Ankara's multidimensional foreign policy, both geographically, but also in terms of method. Ankara's recent opening to the world has been mostly accomplished through economic and political means, while never raising any doubts about the impact of Ankara's new orientation on its military alliances. Although the joint exercise with China does not directly call into question Turkey's military alliance with NATO, it signals that even in military affairs, if its existing alliances lose their significance, Ankara can and will consider other options.
* BUT BY ALL MEANS, LET'S FOCUS ON THE PALESTINIANS... (*SMIRK*) (*GROWL*) (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)
From a strategic point of view, the drill underlined Turkey's importance in global politics. While the West is increasingly engaged in heated discussions over whether or not it has lost Turkey, the new rising powers are quickly beginning to recognize Turkey's significance. This military exercise, while allowing China to flaunt its military reach, should also be seen as Beijing's recognition of Turkey's rising importance in regional and global affairs.
The drill also underlines that China's search for potential strategic partners is not limited to resource-rich but influence-poor countries. As China grows in global stature, it is becoming increasingly interested in playing a rule-maker role in global politics, rather than being just a rule-follower. Turkey has shown its ability to bring different perspectives to the table on persistent regional issues involving Iran, Iraq and the Palestinians, reflecting Ankara's independent foreign-policy thinking since the Justice and Development Party came into office in 2002. As China's ambitions for geopolitical and geo-economic influence in Central Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East have grown, it has come to see Turkey as a potential gateway to those regions.
* GREAT. JUST FRIGG'N GREAT. (OUTSTANDING JOB SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON... GREAT WORK MR. PRESIDENT...)
(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)
The interest in developing deeper ties has been mutual. In another signal of China's importance to Turkish foreign policy, Ankara is preparing to declare 2012 the "year of China," making Beijing the centerpiece of Turkey's "new" Asia policy. Ankara has already articulated that new policy through its engagements with Afghanistan and India, and with high-level visits to China, India and other Asian countries, especially since 2008.
Whether or not the West will continue to ignore Turkey's rising global role and keep it waiting at the gate of the European Union remains unclear. What is evident is that emerging non-Western powers are paying more attention to Turkey, and value closer relations with Ankara. Whether this will result in a fundamental shift in Turkey's allegiance, leading the West to "lose" Turkey is open to debate. However, if the West maintains its current - sometimes irrational - approach to Ankara, its worst fears could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
* WE'RE REACTIVELY INCOMPETENT; THE EUROPEANS ARE PROACTIVELY INCOMPETENT. (F--KING EUROPEANS...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/opinion/23iht-edking.html?_r=1
If the current generation of American consumers is to carry on living beyond its means, America’s “family silver” will have to be sold to Chinese and other emerging investors.
China’s ability to snap up U.S. assets will only increase in the years ahead. The Chinese economy may be only one-third the size of America’s, but it is growing at least three times more quickly.
Even if China’s surplus savings — reflected in its current account surplus — fall as a share of its own national income, rapid Chinese growth will still leave those savings rising as a share of America’s national income.
China would then have the money to buy an ever-increasing range of U.S. real estate, equities and companies.
Other emerging nations might find themselves in a similar position.
This, ultimately, is a story about the ownership and control of the commanding heights of the global economy. The United States will lose out. China and other emerging nations will make tremendous gains.
Those who remember Japan’s acquisition of Rockefeller Center and Pebble Beach may say “so what?” If the U.S. were to sell assets at an inflated price to naïve investors from the emerging world, they would ultimately lose out, as the Japanese did in the 1990s.
* TWO KEY POINTS: 1) THIS AIN'T THE '80'S; 2) CHINA AIN'T JAPAN.
Indeed, the Chinese may already have followed the Japanese example - not through the purchase of New York real estate or Californian golf courses [as of yet], but, instead, via the acquisition of bundles of dollar-based IOUs, more commonly known as U.S. Treasuries. Should the dollar subsequently decline, the renminbi value of China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries would be a lot lower than it is today. A dollar decline is, thus, [in theory] a neat way for the U.S. to side-step its obligations to its foreign creditors.
* THE PROBLEM IS... BESIDES BEING EXTRAORDINARILY IRRESPONSIBLE, ETHICALLY REPREHENSIBLE, AND ULTIMATELY MOST PAINFUL TO OURSELVES SINCE WE'RE STUCK WITH DOLLARS - WE HAVE NO OUT - THERE'S THIS... WHAT IF THE CHINESE DON'T JUST SIT BACK AND "TAKE" US SCREWING THEM THAT WAY...?!?! HMM...???
China is already buying commodity assets in Africa and striking energy deals in Brazil, increasing its political and economic power in parts of the world that, in some cases, are seen to be in America’s backyard. Chinese companies have also purchased Volvo Cars (previously owned by Ford) and bits of IBM. It is, surely, only a matter of time before China takes an even greater interest in acquiring more “real” U.S. assets - companies and real estate - which, unlike Treasuries, are likely to rise significantly in value in dollar terms should the dollar’s value drop in world markets.
Global imbalances are not just a story about short-run economic instability. They ultimately reflect a shift in the global tectonic plates that will ultimately erode U.S. power and influence.
Post a Comment